It's similar to saying, "if you care about your health, why are you going to Burger King". We all make compromises (not saying vegans eat meat though) so I think this is a fair analogy... as an omnivore, I like that if I do decide to compromise and get food from a fast food restaurant, I at least have this as another option that seems healthier for me and the environment than other options on their menu. FWIW I've tried the Beyond Burger at Carl's Jr. and liked it for the same reasons. I enjoyed it and would consider getting it again if I went there in the future.
This isn't complicated. Many vegans would prefer to never eat where meat is being served, but recognize the practical reality that if you want business to start providing more ethical alternatives, you need to actually patronize those businesses. So they compromise by providing that revenue, while still trying to avoiding cross-contaminating what they're eating with what they see as murder-byproducts.
I never talked about people who are vegan for health reasons (†). I was talking about people who are not vegan, and would like to eat less meat if it is healthy. The reasons you describe is exactly why vegan burgers are not appealing to the larger market of non-vegans.
(†) I believe if they were health conscious, they would it less meat, but would not be vegan.
Going vegan (which I understand as deciding to only eat vegan from now on) is a much larger decision than just giving a plant-based burger a try in order to reduce your meat consumption somewhat.
A bit of a sticking point with me and my partner is I refused to go eat at a cafe with my partners sister/husband for brunch as it was a vegan cafe. My reasoning was it was junk food, heavily processed food made to taste like meat. Nutritionaly there was nothing on the menu that suited my macros as I was training for a competition on a strict diet.
I did explain I'd happily eat somewhere that served real, whole food that was vegan, the issue wasn't about it being a vegan cafe, the issue was the food was nutritionally junk.
Whole based plant foods can be extremely tasty, healthy and simple. I quite happily eat these types of vegan meals. I actively avoid beyond meat burgers but will quite happily eat lentil burgers.
Still on the topic of McDonalds, people want beyond meat style burgers so it's good they are providing them as an option.
I think you're overestimating the number of people who are vegan for health reasons. People who are health conscious don't choose burgers - whether they're vegan or not, and most vegans who choose burgers are looking for taste, not nutrition.
It's a false equivalence. Burgers are not healthy - and very, very few people are looking for 'healthy burgers'. People are looking for 'tasty burgers', which is why so much effort is put into replicating the flavour and texture of meat.
There are also people trying to reduce their environmental impact (so also an ethical stance).
But there are some who have allergies, and it can be easier for them to choose a vegan restaurant to be certain there's no lactose / egg contamination.
This is because veganism is an extreme and the argument thus goes into 'meat' versus 'no animal product at all' (veganism).
In the West we probably eat too much meat (from a health perspective at least) so we should probably try to eat less of it, which can be as simple as not eating meat every day or at every meal. That's it, not very controversial and, yes, you can still eat 'proper' burgers when you go out.
Some vegans. If you care about the environment at all you’re not going to be demanding every restaurant buy additional grills, expand footprint, or alternatively not serve vegans at all. Demanding separate grills doesn’t have any impact on animal suffering either. The only vegans I could see caring about that are the purity test vegans or the vegans who are convinced meat is physically dangerous to human health, and those people shouldn’t eat in McDonald’s regardless.
It probably comes down to the introduction of ethics into the mix. If ethics were not introduced as part of the argument for the dietary choice, most omnivores who make it an issue probably wouldn't.
Personally, I don't care what others eat. They could eat tasteless fiber, or artificial meat-tasting protein or actual meats. It's their choice.
On the other hand, if I'm a guest and there are only vegan choices, then that what there is, likewise if I'm a guest and there is only steak, that's what there is (and I don't like steak).
I am. My wife is vegan but I'm not. I'm happy to eat something that tastes like what I'm used to and doesn't kill a cow. I'm not a foodie. For the most part, I eat out of necessity and not some sense of pleasure. I dislike most foods and I'm impossible to cook for because of it. I like the taste of a burger. I've cooked a Beyond burger. Tasted good enough. As long as the costs aren't crazy, that's what I'll eat.
Vegan restaurants exist for a reason - people like having more than one option when they go out. Imagine getting basically the same burger wherever you go because that's the thing on the menu you can eat. It's better than nothing but it gets boring really fast.
The number of vegan restaurants compared to the actual demand right now is too high though, especially fast food vegan places that can't differentiate themselves well because they all use the same substitute products without doing much to them.
I've been vegetarian for a couple decades and have no problem with vegans.
I don't think I've ever been to a pizza place that didn't just let me choose a vegetarian pizza with real cheese. I also love Beyond Meat, but most veggieburgers I ate prior to Beyond Meat were vegan too, though few places used cheese or egg. You can make a vegan black bean burger, or a great vegan portobello. Veganism isn't what converted places to Beyond.
Vegans choose to abstain from animal products, not that they "don't want them."
The reasons might be environmental, ethical, moral, or religious, etc... Not important, just that a vegan or vegetarian is simply someone who did a cost-benefit analysis where, to them, the costs of meat (environmental degradation, massive suffering, personal guilt, my-god-said-so, whatever) outweigh the benefits (taste, convenience, social acceptably). That's merely it!
It's not cognitive dissonance to want to enjoy some of the benefits of something without some of the costs - that's what vegan "meat" (at least attempts) to do.
Why single out and question veganism specifically?
Wouldn't vegetarians, religious folks, and alpha-gal syndrome sufferers also want a zero animal-product burger? The market is pretty diverse for this demand.
reply